Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a subject fraught with all sorts of ideas and likely misinformation. In the universal healthcare countries, the government dictates to physicians essentially what they can earn. Doctors won't like that. Do we force them or else? Do we tell a surgeon who endures 20 years of preparation before being turned loose to practice that he/she can only earn so much because the government controls everything? In Sweden, according to an account I read (be skeptical), a doctor could only see 18 patients. If you were number 19, you had to come back. Of course there might be a dozen or two number 19s. Medicare does work but it has endless rules and regulations that are choking physicians even now plus it is subject to much fraud and abuse. You can rest assured that you will be assigned to a doctor who you might not like or trust. You might get the one who finished last in their class in some Carribbean school. So you want to take your kid to one of the big name medical centers for treatment because it isn't offered locally or local is simply not up to snuff. But no, you cannot because the government bureaucrat says no.
In a perfect world it would be great to have national health insurance, but the government is not benign. And rest assured there would be controls over treatments. There will be protocols based on age, disability, disease assessment and so on. Say you smoke or drink (too much). Say you are obese. The government says you cannot get this or that treatment because you have certain habits.
In most national care countries, there are still private insurance and private practices. The well heeled will still have access to the best care without the long waits.
As usual though, like climate change or any other subject, you will never see or hear thoughtful debates on NPR but instead will get hateful sound bites, screaming interviews, demonstrations while corporate America buys off the congress. No matter the outcome, we all lose to some degree. Someone's ox gets gored early and bad. It won't be the rich and powerful. Never is, never will be.
So being born white to rich parents is a wise choice and being born poor and black in the inner city to a single parent family is a poor choice?
I don't like blaming others for how they live their lives when I haven't walked one step in their shoes. You must feel happy thinking you are so perfect and better than others.
How you live your life is completely different than what you were born into. Obviously what you are born into isnt a choice. After that it is for the most part.
Completely false dichotomy. You are framing the debate in a binary fashion that is intentionally dishonest. Plenty of people out there who started off poor and have made a better life for themselves. I am one of them
1. The cleansing of the Temple narrative tells of Jesus expelling the merchants and the money changers from the Temple, and occurs in all four canonical gospels of the New Testament. The scene is a common motif in Christian art.
In this account, Jesus and his disciples travel to Jerusalem for Passover, where Jesus expels the merchants and money changers from the Temple, accusing them of turning the Temple into "a den of thieves" through their commercial activities.[1][2]
...yes? What does this have to do with anything? Do you know what the money changers were doing? It was not honest, voluntary commerce. They would inspect the offerings brought to the temple and declare that they were blemished in some way, in order to sell an "acceptable" alternative. They were essentially selling access to God. This is clearly unacceptable. It says nothing about voluntary commerce between two parties being evil. There are in fact many places in the bible where engaging in wise investments in order to be a good steward of the wealth one is entrusted with is praised as a virtue.
Quote:
1A There were different times when Governments were different and they allowed people to be crucified so you can't say that Jesus would be preaching the gospel of Prosperity and fight for the rich rather than the needy.
I'm having a hard time making sense of this statement, but who said anything about preaching the gospel of prosperity? I said that taking things that don't belong to you is wrong, and that nothing in the bible which talks about generous giving legitimizes charity by force. Unless you're arguing that giving a small group of people the power to kill you if you don't do what they say is not using force?
Quote:
2. The out of control costs are the for profit insurance companies who add a profit to every service and deny needed services to keep that profit margin or raise rates. Also hospitals being able to charge whatever they want $1K one month and $20K a few months later for the same procedure would end under Universal Healthcare.
It's far, far more complicated than that. The costs of medical care have skyrocketed in the last few decades, yes. The number of regulations and the amount of government involvement in the medical care and medical insurance industries have also skyrocketed. Correlation does not equal causation, it is true, but it's reasonable to suggest that the problem is not, in fact, insufficient government involvement, and that it might just be the reverse which is true.
I expect it's a lost cause, but if you're interested in some of the history and economics surrounding increasing medical costs, this is a reasonable place to start: https://mises.org/wire/how-governmen...e-so-expensive
LOL uhm, hardly stagnant. Not sure how you arrived that that. Actually a huge Ramsey fan and grad of FPU. We were paycheck to paycheck, but his plan motivated us and changed our lives 7 years ago and have not looked back. Far from stagnant.
...And not one politician was harmed or helped in making that happen.
Hey, I m sorry . I dint mean you are stagnant. Dave Ramsey was speaking in a show and said " The wages are not stagnant, you are stagnant" . It was not even to some user. It was a general talk he gave on how to manage things and stop complaining.
Why would anyone in favor of healthcare, housing or daycare or credit card debt think Trump cares one lick about them. He only cares about himself and his rich friend to lower their tax rates and make them richer. He's a smooth talker sometimes but it's all lies.
NO he does. He is one of the few people who tries to do things for common folk after a long time ( After Obamacare) . He spoke the same thing in 90's and 2016 and now.
He also cares about the rich, which is why the tax cut bill was passed with bipartisan support and media didnt give much attention to it.
Fair share of income? What does that mean? Is everyone supposed to make the same, no matter how hard or smart they work, and those who gets more are abusing the system?
People should be rewarded for working harder, doing more work, and for doing highly skilled work that most people can't do.
But that is not how this country works. People who work very hard at tough jobs that nobody else wants to do, are paid very low wages. In the meantime, the lazy rich use their money to make more money, without having to do any work that they don't want to do. Their rich kids get fun jobs and glamour jobs, which are more hobbies that pay than genuine hard work. What does Ivanka Trump do? Does she own a line of designer clothes or shoes or something? Oh, that sounds like such hard work !
The fact is, the rich get richer, because they can use their money to make more money. They don't need to work, because they own the land and the resources necessary for work. And the more land and resources they grab up, the harder it is for the rest of us to earn a living without being wage slaves to the rich.
Just a century ago, people could save up their money to buy a farm, or start a blacksmithing shop, or start some other business on their own. In fact, my own dad was still able to do start a successful business without a mortgage back in the 60s. But today, if you don't have rich parents, you need to get a mortgage if you want to start your own business, and you'll be paying about 30% interest to the bank. Then you will probably go bankrupt in the first year, because most small businesses do nowadays. It's tragic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey2k
Investments that, without which, many people wouldn't even have jobs, and without which many of the products and innovations which make our lives easier, more efficient, and more enjoyable, would not exist.
Most investments today do not create jobs. Today most investment is speculative , in other words, most investment today is just the "buy low, sell high" variety that only benefits the investor, and drives up costs for everybody else.
There is some merit in productive investments, but speculative investing is just like vultures feeding off of everybody else.
I don't get why any American not in the a1% would be against Universal Healthcare since every other first world nation has it and so do some third world nations.
Near as I can tell they don't give a crap about poor people or people less fortunate then themselves and it is preferable for such people to die in the street than to give up any of their money to help them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
